or burglar, wichever you prefer.
My memory is vague, but I believe there have been analogous cases where the homeowner was indeed liable.
Suppose the burglar fell on a roller skate carelessly left on the path to the front door. I believe the burglar might have the same tort rights as anyone else, even though his reason for being there was to rob the house.
Applying this principle to the OP: would Americans who were legally in the desert have a right of action against the country, because there was no water? I don’t see why they would. The illegal immigrants should have no more rights than people who might have been there legally.
Warning: IANAL
Loki:
[hijack]Does “that fucking moron” refer to the old lady with third degree burns all over her legs? Just curious.[/hijack]
I don’t know where the fucking moron received her burns, or to what degree, nor do I care in this context.
She burned herself, and is solely responsible for her burns. There is an expectation that coffee is hot, be careful with it… by the same token there is an expectation that a desert is hot, take your own water 'cause there won’t be fountains there.
Is your curiosity satisfied?
We’ll need a little more than your vague recollections.
I’m surprised this hasn’t been brought up here before, especially in the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit threads. (This GQ thread discusses it: Has there ever been a court ruling like this?.) In law school I was taught that this one another exaggerated urban legend promulgated by anti-tort activists. For good reason, booby traps are illegal, and the lawsuits by injured burglars have all been based on this. Sorry I can’t provide a cite, but it’s impossible to debunk a story that no one can provide a cite for either.
Nice attitude. Thankfully, people who aren’t interested in learning anything and prefer to base their opinions on ignorance are looked down upon here. There have been a number of GD threads that have discussed the McDonald’s coffee case extensively. You can start a new one if you like, but with the language you’re using it sounds like you should head to the Pit.
This is a hijack, but I need to set the record straight. I did a bit of research, and I’m increasingly offended by the fact that tort reformers continue to repeat known lies. Tort reform primarily benefits corporations and hurts people like you and me, and the only way they can garner public support is to flat-out lie. Here is the story behind the burglar falling through the skylight:
Ronald Reagan originated this false story. In reality, the “burglar” was actually a high-school football student who was asked by his coach to retrieve equipment on the roof of the school. The skylight had been blacked out so as to make it not visible and was too weak to support a person’s weight. This was reported as early as April 24, 1986 by the Christian Science Monitor, but tort reformers have continued to repeat the burglar story as fact. The real story can also be found in a March 12, 2002 Boston Herald article, which discusses a book by Carl T. Bogus entitled Why Lawsuits Are Good for America. The only source I could find that is available online is this one.
OK, I’ll bite. I will be the one to defend the other side to the point that I can. I can argue this one flat or round just because this is a matter of moral judgment and people with different value systems would necessarily reach different conclusions. But, with my values, the answer is yes and I will explain why.
As I understand it, the facts are that the US government denied permission to a private group who wanted to set up drinking water stations in the desert because Mexicans were dying in their attempts to cross it. So the question is Should the US government have granted that permit and should it now be held responsible for having denied it?
It can be argued the US has no obligation to these people because they are not US citizens. I see governments as representing the totality of the people. They have duties towards those who voted for them but also, as our representatives, they have duties to our moral values which include human rights for all humans. In my view, the fact that the people are not US citizens does not mean that in matters of life and death and on territory under US jurisdiction and control, the US does not have any obligations towards them. Under these circumstances the obligations (or lack thereof) and responsibilities of the US government are the same regardless of the nationality of the victims. If we conclude the US should save the lives of US citizens under certain circumstances, then it has the same obligation towards any humans in similar circumstances. The courts have ruled repeatedly that Federal, State and local governments do have certain basic obligations in favor of people who entered the US illegally.
It can be argued that by allowing those water stations to be placed in the desert, the US government would be helping others break the law. While I can appreciate the point, I believe this is a matter of degree, matter of weighing both sides of the equation. Nothing is absolutely above everything else, everything must be weighed and pondered.
The government very often helps people even though the reason those people need help is because of their own bad decisions. We could say that by offering help the government is encouraging those bad decisions. When a flood or a tornado or a hurricane causes wide devastation, the Feds offer help without regard to the fact that those houses were unsuitably built in an area known to be subject to such acts of God.
Our culture places a very high value on human life and would try to save the lives even of criminals. The government has an obligation to provide basic necessities for the preservation of life, even to criminals. We would not let a person starve to death in our community, even if that person was a criminal. If the police came by a person dying of starvation on the street and just ignored the situation, they would be held responsible for that action even if the person was dying due to having done something illegal like consuming drugs. If a man is shot in a shootout with police, even though his situation is due to having committed a crime, once the police is in a situation where they can save the man’s life, they have an obligation to do so even though this can be seen as “encouraging crime”. Sure, any help given by the government to those who are in a bad situation because of having broken the law could be seen as an incentive to breaking the law. But it is repugnant to our humanity to let people die in the streets from drug overdose or from bullet wounds even if those people are the scum of the earth. Possibly drug consumption and gun crimes would decrease somewhat if we did that but we don’t because doing that would be repugnant to our moral values. In some countries and communities there are needle exchange programs for drug addicts. This is because while drug use remains illegal, we recognize people will do it anyway and we attempt to save lives even at the risk of “being an accessory to breaking the law”. Our society recognizes that even people who break the law have rights and the right to life is given the highest value.
It is clear the state has a moral obligation to aid in the preservation of human life of every individual, including those who have broken the law. The question is how far does that obligation extend. It is clear that entering the country illegally is a much lesser crime than shooting at police and so, less forceful means should be used in discouraging it. Also, in this case the government was not required to do anything positive which may cost money or means. The government prevented a private group from offering aid to people who faced the risk of death. Unless the State can show good cause why this permit should be denied then I would say the government acted contrary to our moral values and should bear the consequences of that decision.
These would be the arguments I would make in court if I was the plaintiff’s attorney and those would be the arguments that would convince me to vote for the plaintiff if I was in the Jury. Obviously, YMMV.
BTW, I recently saw this discussed on Donahue but I was not paying close attention. On the one hand was that group attempting to set up the water stations and they told how bodies were found in the desert, including young mothers with their babies. Dead of dehydration. Also there were the parents of a US park ranger hose son had been shot dead by some fugitive from Mexican authorities. While I appreciate their loss, their argument boiled down to “we shouldn’t be doing anything for Mexicans cuz they killed my son”. I didn’t buy it.
And regarding the title of the thread, I find it very misleading. The question is not really “Does the gov’t have to help illegal immigrants sneak across the border?” but rather “Should the US government be allowed to prevent private groups from helping save lives?”
As in the old jesuit story, if you are gettying the wrong answer it means you are asking the wrong question. 
I live in Tucson and this is big news here.
The group that sets out water is called Human Borders and here is an interesting article about the issue.
No one says that the Border Patrol should put water out for these people. But this non-profit group wanted to use their own money and resources to do so, and was prevented. Why?
The article linked (one of those links is broken) provides enough information about the suit to determine whether it is valid. I would have to read the complaint, or at the least a description of what is in the complaint, in order to form any opinions.
I did a search and turned up some interesting articles about this organization. (Some of which can be found on their website, http://www.humaneborders.org/.) There is a strong opposition to their work. People argue that they are encouraging illegal immigration, but of course it’s utterly ridiculous to suggest that people are motivated to cross the desert by the possibility of finding water. They were even sued in April, a month before this suit was filed, charging that the organization’s real purpose was to “provide aid and comfort to foreigners, drug smugglers and potential terrorists, who deliberately and willfully violate the laws … by criminally trespassing and committing vandalism in Pima County.” In case it’s not clear, these people set up water stations in the desert.
There’s a lot more going on here. Basically, I see a struggle between a charitable organizations trying to save lives and some racist xenophobes. Many of the locals are actually happy when Mexicans die crossing the border. None of us can judge whether this lawsuit is valid, but we have no reason to question this organization’s intentions.
Just to confirm what you’re saying, there’s no question that most of the right in the Constitution apply to “persons,” not “citizens” or “legal residents.”
I’d say this is the same situation. We know people are crossing that desert with too little water. We know that without intervention, they’re going to die. Letting a private (non tax funded) group set up a water station is a fairly low amount of assistance. There is (to me) some level of moral duty here.
Humane Borders did receive a small amount of public money for their work. That’s why some people filed a lawsuit against them. But it has nothing to do with the lawsuit in the OP, as HB wasn’t asking for money in this case.
No, it’s not ethical to let him die. But that is a different issue.
We aren’t under any obligation to encourage the violation of the law. If a guy freezes to death crossing through my property on the way to rob my house, should his family sue because I didn’t put up a “Burglar Station” with warm coats and Hot Cocoa to aid him on his journey? Sure if I saw him freezing to death I’d help out, but I’m not going to give him any incentives to do what he did.
No, Blalron, you’re obviously not understanding what this case is about. Here’s a closer analogy:
A man driving without a license takes a dangerous curve a little too fast and gets into an accident. No one else is hurt, but the driver will die if he doesn’t receive immediate medical care. A good samaritan stops to provide first aid and take him to the hospital, but police prevent her from doing so because the man doesn’t have a license, and the man dies.
Blalron’s is closer, Chula. Yours would hold if we were talking about good samaritans driving through the desert, coming across dying immigrants, taking care of them, and then escorting them back to Mexico. If that were the case, I think it’d be a different story; and I tend to think the authorities would have no problem with that scenario, just as the police would have no problem with taking care of your motorist’s injuries, and then afterwards mailing him the ticket or summons or whatever.
Setting up aid stations would facilitate the commission of a crime(i.e. illegal entry). The government has every right to prevent citizens from setting up systems designed to make said crime less dangerous.
And calling those who hold different positions “racist xenophobes” usually isn’t productive.
My oldest brother told me about an incident in Utah where a burglar tried to break into a basement window while the family who lived in the house was asleep. The burglar couldn’t fit through the window with his jacket on, so he took it off and tried again. Halfway through he got stuck, with his feet in the air. Having no leverage to get himself out, he froze to death.
The family of the burglar sued the owners of the house for having an unsafe window, and won.
(Note: I have no cite for this, it was word of mouth only. It may just be an urban legend, but with the number of absolutely ridiculous REAL lawsuits I’ve seen, this one doesn’t sound any less plausible than those)
The Mexican government has installed water barrels along the trails and also posts signs to warn of the danger. And not all Mexicans live in arid desert climes such as the Sonoran desert and don´t know how fast they can become dehydrated. Many really don’t understand the risks involved.
BTW I think the lawsuit is a crock.
**
I would argue that the US government has no obligation to ensure that human beings are safe in a desert. They have no obligation to make sure that citizens or non-citizens have access to food or water in the middle of the wilderness.
**
I don’t think setting up water stations in the desert constitutes basic obligations. To me that is going above and beyond any moral obligation the government or the citizens of the United States has when it comes to preserving life.
Marc
Apparently you aren’t familiar with the context. There are groups of white supremacists organizing into armed militia groups in preparation for a race war. Granted, most of them don’t identify as white supremacists; they just believe that true American culture (white culture) is being undermined under the guise of multiculturalism by a conspiracy of Hispanic Americans, the Mexican government, Mexican immigrants, as well as liberal Jews, evil Muslims, and savage Africans. They claim they only hate “illegals” but believe anyone who looks Mexican is illegal. There are actually armed vigilante groups patrolling the area around the water stations looking for illegals. These are the enemies faced by this charitable organization.